tooextracool said:
yes so the fact that tendulkar averages 7 runs more than ganguly at the top ATM it means that he is a far better player at the top.
No, it means he is a better opening-batsman.
It doesn't mean he is better at hammering it in the first 15, which is what I was talking about.
so then lets hear it,how many times did he succeed in run chases? given that batting at 4 requires you to be somewhat competent in run chases especially considering hes been move down from a far more successful position for this.
Well considering his average at four when India have batted second is a more-than-acceptible 37.05, and he's been not-out in one fifth of his innings, I'd say he's done a reasonable job.
for a player as exceptional as tendulkar it is ordinary, and the fact that hes doing far better job at the top than he is at 4....
It's not ordinary compared to most others.
so lets see all his scores from the 99 wc at 4 then shall we?
140* 4 not out 1 W World Cup 15 v Ken in Eng 1999 at Bristol
2 4 bowled 1 W World Cup 21 v SL in Eng 1999 at Taunton
22 4 caught 1 W World Cup 25 v Eng in Eng 1999 at Birmingham
0 4 caught 2 * W 5th ODI v NZ in Ind 1999/00 at Delhi
13 4 bowled 1 * L C&U Ser. 2 v Pak in Aus 1999/00 at Brisbane
12 4 run out 2 * L C&U Ser. 3 v Aus in Aus 1999/00 at Melbourne
34* 4 not out 2 W 3rd ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Bridgetown
65 4 bowled 1 W 5th ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Port of Spain
1 4 lbw 2 W NW Series 2 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
49 4 caught wk 2 W NW Series 3 v SL in Eng 2002 at The Oval
105* 4 not out 1 N NW Series 5 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Chester-le-Street
19 4 caught 2 W NW Series 6 v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham
36 4 caught wk 2 L NW Series 8 v Eng in Eng 2002 at The Oval
113 4 caught 1 W NW Series 9 v SL in Eng 2002 at Bristol
14 4 bowled 2 W NW Series F v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
7 4 caught 1 W ICC KO 3 v Zim in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
9* 4 not out 2 W ICC KO 11 v Eng in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
16 4 run out 1 W ICC KO SF v SA in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
0 4 lbw 2 W 5th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Wellington
1 4 caught wk 2 W 6th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Auckland
as you can see clearly that same tendulkar failed in the entire 99 wc batting at 4, yet of course we all know that if he had batted 4 in the 03 edition india would have won the cup. its also interesting to note that he failed in his last 6 innings at 4(7 if you count the match in NZ where he batted at 3) so his being sent back to the top was justifiable. the 38 average is also inflated by his 140* against kenya in the 99 wc so it should probably be a lot lower than that.
He didn't fail in his last 7 innings at four or three, he failed in 6 of them, because one was a not-out, and a not-out cannot be a failure.
Excluding that Kenya innings his average at four is 35.38, still pretty good.
And the fact that he failed in all of WC99 at four (and I can't believe he wouldn't have scored quite a few against anyone else on that Kenya day had he got the chance) is of what relevance? Given that he's succeeded since.
We do not know that India would have won WC2003 if he'd batted at four at all, but they'd have had a better chance if you ask me.
look at it in context, all his scores have come when hes been sent in to bat early, his 87* vs england, 111 against zimbabwe, 68 against NZ, 95 vs SA,64 vs NZ and the 71 vs pak
Yes, so they have. He's still not done very well when batting at four.
nope ganguly has been good at 3 so he bats at 3, dravid at 4, kaif at 5 and yuvraj at 6 suggests to me to be the right batting order. theres no place for tendulkar there IMO
So you would really prefer Kaif to Laxman?
yes but if you had done the same thing with those players then they wouldnt have got their chance to become as good as they are today. that suggests to me that they deserve more chances at the intl level.
And the fact that very few players get the chances they did suggests to me that Chopra should be among the majority, not the minority.
yes and looking at chopras appalling first class average of nearly 50, he clearly doesnt deserve any more chances.....
And looking at the number of Indian opening-batsmen with averages in the late 40s or early 50s who've not done much in Test-cricket, no, he doesn't. And AFAIK the only one to average in the high 50s doesn't even get a look-in.
and how many other seaming or turning wickets has he played on?? not many and the fact that he has succeeded in several of them suggests to me that he cant be considered a flat track bully.
Exactly - not many. And the fact that he's failed in most of them suggest to me that he is a flat-track bully.
rubbish , you didnt even watch that series! yes the first test wicket was flat, but the 2nd test wicket was a blatant turner. paul wiseman took 4 wickets in the first innings and the totals in the respective innings were 305,298,183,72/1, those arent high scores at all. and surprise surprise richardson scored 2 50s. any more stuff from handpicking.com?
So why couldn't Sri Lanka finish New Zealand off, then? If it was such an extravagant turner, they should have been able to win three-and-a-half days, against such relatively poor players of spin.
any more tripe that you are going to bring up?
Probably, given that your best attempt at dismissal of anything I write is as such.
id like to see how many innings on seamer friendly or turning conditions that richardson has failed on!
More easy to look at is when he has scored runs:
99 vs Zimbabwe, on a pitch where New Zealand made 465 and Zimbabwe scored 370 in their follow-on. Suggests to me it was pretty good for batting.
77 vs South Africa at Bloemfontein which is notorious for slow, low wickets with no seam-movement. This one, I can tell you having watched the game, was no different.
60 at St. George's Park vs South Africa - typical wicket here, too, slow, low and seaming - scoring runs wasn't easy, he did it pretty well.
75 at Basin Reserve vs Zimbabwe, 19 wickets fell in the entire game, impossibly slow pitch, nothing in anywhere for any bowlers.
59 vs Pakistan at Eden Park, nothing in the wicket for any bowlers. The Sami-instigated collapse was one of the worst ever seen.
119 for once out at Christchurch, on a wicket as dead as anything you'll see - the drop-in experiment hadn't yet been honed.
106 at WPT Park, Hamilton, out of a total of 407 for 4. Barring that declaration, it would probably have been 600 or 700. A pretty good batting wicket, something makes me think.
57 vs Aus at The Gabba - second-innings, flat wicket but he still deserves credit for playing in a style unsuited to him in a short run-chase.
143 and 83 vs Bangladesh - "Bangladesh" - that's all we need to know there. Though I'm assured the wickets were very flat, in a Bond discussion.
76 vs Eng at Christchurch - absolutely plumb lbw on 33.
60 at Basin Reserve - dropped 3 times.
95 and 71 vs WI at St.George's, Greneda, 1099 runs for 25 wickets in the match. Pretty flat wicket, methinks.
113 for once out vs India at Basin Reserve - excellent performance on one of the best seamers' wickets you'll see.
91 for once out vs SL at PSS, flat a wicket as you'll see, Vaas on off-day.
55 and 55 at Kandy, seemingly yet more dispute over whether the pitch was turning or not.
145 at Mohali, flat as any wicket you'll see.
82 and 41 vs Pak at Basin Reserve - very flat wicket, only Shoaib's genius forced a result.
93 and 101 at Lord's - very little in that pitch for the bowlers.
73 and 49 at Trent Bridge - good performance, that pitch offered no little turn.
Of course, only on the England games can I remember off the top of my head whether there were any let-offs, and I can't be bothered to dredge through all the reports to find-out.
It's highly unlikely there won't have been some somewhere, though.
oh yes bowlers have penetrative techniques too now dont they?
Err, yes, any fool can see that.
Seam, conventional-swing, reverse-swing, cutters, turn, drift, loop. None of which are much use without a certain amount of accuracy and bounce.
yet hes taken so very many wickets in non seaming conditions, the 15.35 average in the most spinner friendly conditions in india in 2001 certainly is a valid example isnt it?
Yep, and there are plenty more.
From the lot I've seen, all down to poor strokes, some from tail-enders, some from top-order.